UNIT 3 Age of Exploration When you get to p. 75, read to the bottom of p. 77. Stop at the paragraph beginning "Thereafter the Qazi..." Is there evidence here that Zhu Di truly did not understand what was happening to his rule?
Yes, there is evidence that Zhu Di truly did not understand what was happening to his rule because of the fire that had engulfed the entire city and has killed a lot of men and women. Not only that, but the epidemic that was spreading through the empire killed thousands of people and they were left their to rot because there was nobody to bury them. They all thought that it was a sign of anger from the god of the heavens.
He suffered a lot of strikes and treated with poison and have been thrown off his own charger.
Start up again on the bottom of p. 78 (from "Apparently abandoned by heaven..."). List all the things that happened to the old emperor near the end of his life.
He faced mounting political problems. The construction of the forbidden city, the grand canal, the great wall had enormous strains of chinas economy and there were rebellions in Annam and vietnam. Lost control of his cabinet and almost lost control of china. A mandarin cabinet led the armed forces and executed Zhu Di's foreign policy.A diplomatic crisis accelerated the disintegration of Zhu Di's government. The Mongol leader Arughtai refused to pay the tribute. Then they sent an army toward the Arughtai, however, the expedition failed. Arughtai managed to disappear and later on, Zhu di died at the age of sixty four.
Finally read the edict of the new emperor, Zhu Di's son, Zhu Gaozhi, on the very day he ascended the throne, pp 81-85, beginning "All voyages of the treasure ships are to be stopped." Explain how this edict changed the history of not only China but of the WORLD. How did this leave open the "door" for Europe to take center stage now?
They stopped trading with all the other countries. Because of the constructions of the many monuments, China was drained of their resources and even though they needed goods from other countries, it stopped and then Europe was capable of taking the power.
What were the CAUSES of the Scientific Revolution? Which one do you think is MOST significant AND WHY?
The cause is that fact that the europeans started to travel across the world and discovered new things. This expanded their way of thinking and allowed them to think of countless possibilities. Another reason is because the sailors needed better equipment in order for them to travel around. This made it necessary to build new ships and equipments that will allow sailors to navigate through the waters with ease.
Why might those in positions of authority at the time (Church and government) tend to reject new ideas?
The reason is because the church was the most power authority at that time and everybody listened to what they said. However, this new era of science and technology went against the rules of the church and then it made people think for them selves. They started to question things that the church said and they wanted proof. People started to stray away from the church and decide to make a much better governmental system that allowed people freedom. They found out the unique achievements that the human could do and they no longer asked the church for what they should do.
Do you agree with Galileo's actions during his trial? Explain.
No I do not agree with his actions. The reason is because if he said that the idea was false, people would keep on believing what the church says and that stalled the progression of science. I think that he was a bit selfish in that act, however, since he was in the face of cruel and terrible torture that actually could lead to death, I do not blame what he did. It was something that most people would have done if they had to choose from life or death.
Make a list of the major figures of this revolution in thinking and what they did.
Copernicus: Introduced the idea of heliocentric universe against the idea of a geocentric universe which was what the church said. Made a book about the idea of a heliocentric universe.
Galileo Galilei : Found that the universe was not perfect. Found out the jupiter had four moons and the sun had dark spots. Galileo found out that the moons surface was not round and was uneven. His observations protected and supported Copernicus's idea of a heliocentric universe. Sent to trial from going against the church rules and was forced to state that Copernicus's idea was false.
Bacon and Descartes: They both urged scientists to discover new things and do not rely to much on the ancient scientists. They both tried to make the scientists think more and wanted them to find out that the church's idea was false.
Issac Newton: He found out that all objects on earth and the movement of the planets were affected by the same source. This idea was universal gravitation. According to this theory, every object attracts each other and the power of the force depends on the mass of the object. This basically supported Copernicus's Idea of a heliocentric universe. The reason is because that according to what he says, it means that since the sun has the greatest mass out of all the planets, it would attract all the other plants and therefore, it would be the center of the solar system.
Explain the significance of these terms:
Geocentric Theory: The idea that all the planets revolve around the earth
Heliocentric Theory: The idea that all the planets revolve around the sun
Scientific Revolution: A time when science was developing and many people started to invent new things.
Scientific method: This was a proof by which science states when saying something.
‘How did the Renaissance contribute to the opening of the mind in Europe?'
The renaissance helped open the mind of europeans because they started to actually think for them selves. They stopped listening and believing everything they were told and they actually started to question, mainly, the authority and power of the church. They started to look back at everything they learned and questioned everything. One example is the idea of a heliocentric universe. This was a major turning point as it actually corrected what the church said about a geocentric earth. After that, everything the church told them seemed to be a bit faulty. This lead to the creation of many inventions and art. Scholars started to learn astronomy, biology, mathematics, philosophy and art. They also started to study the human body and what it was capable of. Humanism was when people started to decide that they should be able to do anything they want with their own bodies and that they have a lot of hidden potential and capabilities that the church did not recognize. This lead to the weakening of the church and the strengthening of science.
Why did Europe gain dominance over the world?
The reason why Europe gained dominance over the world is because that is where all the knowledge, art, reading, books and music came from. It was where scholars went to study astronomy, mathematic's and art. Because of this, they had all the knowledge and power. They were finding out new things about the universe and mathematical problems and they founded the printing press so they could print books much faster than ever. They were far more developed than the other countries and even the middle class was beginning to become richer and capable of reading. They also had a much developed transport and communication with other countries allowing them to trade many goods. Many scholars such as Leonardo da vinci, Galleleo, Machiavelli, Michelangelo, were making discoveries that changed the way of thinking around the globe. They started to look toward science and math than the guidance of priests in church. This was when they started to question everything that they knew and learned. They started to think that they should be able to enjoy life and take care of their own bodies.
1. How did the cities of Italy help create the Renaissance?
-Italian cities aided in forming the Renaissance as it was the first place to go to during the time. First, as their constant overseas trade flourished, they received new ideas and products from other places. Second, the rich merchant class improved the city states. Third, the scholars sought to revive ancient Greek and Roman ideas.
2. What is your opinion of the Medici family?
-Medici family was indeed very powerful. Not only their extreme wealth, but also they had control over the politics of Florence. I think this family played an important role in leading the Italian Renaissance. The reason is because with their power and money they managed to help other scholars with their work.
3. How did Humanism influence Renaissance ideas?
-Humanism made people to focus on the individuals themselves because Humanism is a belief that highlights the potentials of human beings. Humanism had various effects.
4. Why did church leaders and wealthy merchants support the arts?
-Church leaders and wealthy merchants supported the arts to indicate their importance and power.
5. What were the similarities and differences between upper-class Renaissance men and women?
-Both Renaissance men and women were expected to be well educated, be knowledgeable of the classics and be charming. Men were supposed to be deeply involved and important while the women should not be involved and be more interested in art but never create it
6. After reading the "Analyzing Primary Sources" box, respond to this question: Do the qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance man and woman seem to emphasize the individual or the group? Give evidence in the documents to back up your answer!
-The qualities for ideal Renaissance man and women appear to emphasize the individual.The reason is because the document explained how a man should be where the enemy are to be seen and in every other place, gently, modest, reserved, above all things avoiding showiness and bold self praise.
A: Hamel, Dutch, shipwrecked, virtual prisoner, observer, isolated in one or two areas
P:Korea, Japan, Holland, Distance from events, time from events so it has affected his memory
P: Knowledge of the time period in Korea and in Europe
A: VOC, Dutch East Indies Company
R: Record keeper: memories of trip
T: Explaining Korea society and culture to a European audience (VOC)
S:First written document of life in Korea by a European
In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?
Hogsflesh had to walk around the chichester street almost naked other than a piece of cloth around his waist, and had to carry a faggot with him. When he got to the market he had to climb onto a platform and had to read a statement declaring that he had been convicted for not honoring Mary, that the christ’s body was not in the Eucharist and that he could be saved without the confession of a priest. He had to repeat this punishment at 19th November at the market and on 21 November at Lewes Market. Then on sunday 22nd November he had to join the religious procession at Chichester cathedral still carrying the Faggot to complete his sentence. The historians story or main point of the article is about the Faggot. That if he would have refused or failed, he would have been burned on a stack of faggots.
What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles?
The first role of a historian is to make a report of events into a chronological order and providing no further comments on the discussion. The second role is that of a interpreter, to say something about what things mean. The third role is that of a detective, to find out something by locating historical documents. The next role is that of an analyst, to look dispassionately at the evidence and presenting one’s findings. Another role is that of a judge, offering an assessment of the rights or wrongs of what happened in the past. A historian might also take the role of a political campaigner, because showing the place of ordinary people in history, the historian could contribute to the political discussion about the place of ordinary people. Another role is that of a philosopher, to concentrate on the questions of knowledge and ideas at looking at history throws up. There are two roles that involves all theses other roles that every historian must be. The first is that of a synthesizer, someone who brings together a variety of things and forges them into a new pattern. The other is that of a story teller. In producing a synthesis the historian has to make it available to an audience by writing or the the television. I do agree with his assumptions because all theses roles are necessary to find out more about history and to make sense of it.
What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references?
It means that you have see other peoples sources as if they had made a mistake. The reason is because history can be changed by the perspective of the historian and then history will not be clear because it has been edited. You have to question every fact and understand both perspectives of each side in an event to see the true fact.
How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view?
For example, you can have many interpretation about how you fell and scared you knee. You could have fallen because you were running too fast or you could have fallen because somebody made you trip. Or you could have fallen because you shoe lace was untied or that the floor was slippery and you just slipped.
Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response.
Well there was an incident when I got lost in disney world when I was 5. I remember how I got lost because I was looking somewhere else than where my parents where going, however, my parents remember it by how they were just going to a ride, however, when they turned back to see me, I was not there. Yes it is possible for a historian to be completely objective because they did not experience what the other person felt or saw from the same incident. For example, when I was lost I got very scared and kept on wandering around the whole place looking for my parents, however, my parents did not realize that I was missing until they got to the ride. So a historian from my point of view could say that it was my parents fault that I got lost, while, a historian from my parents point of view could say that it was my fault I was not paying attention to where we were going.
What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history?
If historians practice subjective history, they take on a particular side of the argument. However, the problem is that then we do not understand the entire history because we are only told about how our side is better. Then history could get twisted and changed and it will not be clear. However, the benefits of subjective history is that you can actually understand and feel what the side that you have chosen is feeling so then you can actually interact with history. The reason why my parents and I have a remember differently about the incident when I got lost in disney world is because we both had different views and different experiences. Therefore, we have different sides and because we don’t fully understand the other persons perspective of the incident, we have different stories. This tells us that history can sometimes be wrong and changes by the perspective of every person.
Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not?
The reason why every historian is a story teller is because they have to tell their findings and discoveries to a wide audience which is through writing, radio or television. If all historians are story tellers and there are myriad versions of every story we cannot trust historians because we do not know whether it is the pure clean fact, or if it was edited by their view of the story.
How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views?
I have changed my view of history so that I will question everything that historians tell me, because before this I used to believe in everything that they said. Now I will always question things and see both the perspectives of each side of an event. Therefore, I will understand clearly and see the truth.
Vocabulary
heretical: characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards
faggot: A bundle of sticks that was used for penance.
Eucharist: A sacrament and the central act of worship in many Christian churches, which was instituted at the Last Supper and in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed in remembrance of Jesus's death; Communion.
abstain: To refrain from something by owns on choice
penance: Punishment for a sin
beseeching: To requests
source: A point where ideas or conclusions start from
Culture consists of 3 major parts. Artifacts, which are objects that represent a culture in physical form, Mentifacts which are the ideas and beliefs of the culture and the social facts, which is an institution or event that brings people together and all theses are needed for understanding history. For example, the war of independence between America and Great Britain. Britain declared war with America when they decided to split from Great Britain. When we look into the glasses of Great Britain, we would think of America as a country full of only selfish, stupid and ignorant people who have forgotten their duties to their mother country and that they should all the wiped off. However, if we look at the perspective of America, we would think that Britain is a cruel, power hungry country because they always give us unfair taxes and try to control us. We would think that Britain was the bad side and that America was the good side while Britain would think the opposite. History it self is series of events that have taken place in different times, however, history can be manipulated by time. If we did not have the understanding of culture, then we would all just accept the fact and would be blind from the truth. For example, imagine that a citizen of Great Britain passed on the event of the war of independence. Of course he would take his countries side and tell everyone that America was evil. Then this would pass on through families, friends, different countries, and they would all think that America truly was evil if not for the understanding of culture. Because we understand culture, we can see through the glasses of both America and Great Britain and therefor, we can see the clear true fact about what was going on. Of course we would have different opinions and choose a side, however, from the understanding of culture, future generations will be able to see the clear truth and therefore history will not be twisted into completely different stories. So the understanding of culture is what gives us the capability of seeing and understanding all the different perspectives of any event.
Ant Farm French Revolution William Jeong
Enlightened Despot G block William Jeong
UNIT 3
Age of Exploration
When you get to p. 75, read to the bottom of p. 77. Stop at the paragraph beginning "Thereafter the Qazi..." Is there evidence here that Zhu Di truly did not understand what was happening to his rule?
Yes, there is evidence that Zhu Di truly did not understand what was happening to his rule because of the fire that had engulfed the entire city and has killed a lot of men and women. Not only that, but the epidemic that was spreading through the empire killed thousands of people and they were left their to rot because there was nobody to bury them. They all thought that it was a sign of anger from the god of the heavens.
He suffered a lot of strikes and treated with poison and have been thrown off his own charger.
Start up again on the bottom of p. 78 (from "Apparently abandoned by heaven..."). List all the things that happened to the old emperor near the end of his life.
He faced mounting political problems. The construction of the forbidden city, the grand canal, the great wall had enormous strains of chinas economy and there were rebellions in Annam and vietnam. Lost control of his cabinet and almost lost control of china. A mandarin cabinet led the armed forces and executed Zhu Di's foreign policy.A diplomatic crisis accelerated the disintegration of Zhu Di's government. The Mongol leader Arughtai refused to pay the tribute. Then they sent an army toward the Arughtai, however, the expedition failed. Arughtai managed to disappear and later on, Zhu di died at the age of sixty four.
Finally read the edict of the new emperor, Zhu Di's son, Zhu Gaozhi, on the very day he ascended the throne, pp 81-85, beginning "All voyages of the treasure ships are to be stopped." Explain how this edict changed the history of not only China but of the WORLD. How did this leave open the "door" for Europe to take center stage now?
They stopped trading with all the other countries. Because of the constructions of the many monuments, China was drained of their resources and even though they needed goods from other countries, it stopped and then Europe was capable of taking the power.
William Jeong G The route map
William Jeong G The islamic world planning
William Jeong G Information
William jeong G Muslim
Muslim Empires (homework)
Family History Project William
‘How did the Renaissance contribute to the opening of the mind in Europe?'
The renaissance helped open the mind of europeans because they started to actually think for them selves. They stopped listening and believing everything they were told and they actually started to question, mainly, the authority and power of the church. They started to look back at everything they learned and questioned everything. One example is the idea of a heliocentric universe. This was a major turning point as it actually corrected what the church said about a geocentric earth. After that, everything the church told them seemed to be a bit faulty. This lead to the creation of many inventions and art. Scholars started to learn astronomy, biology, mathematics, philosophy and art. They also started to study the human body and what it was capable of. Humanism was when people started to decide that they should be able to do anything they want with their own bodies and that they have a lot of hidden potential and capabilities that the church did not recognize. This lead to the weakening of the church and the strengthening of science.
Why did Europe gain dominance over the world?
The reason why Europe gained dominance over the world is because that is where all the knowledge, art, reading, books and music came from. It was where scholars went to study astronomy, mathematic's and art. Because of this, they had all the knowledge and power. They were finding out new things about the universe and mathematical problems and they founded the printing press so they could print books much faster than ever. They were far more developed than the other countries and even the middle class was beginning to become richer and capable of reading. They also had a much developed transport and communication with other countries allowing them to trade many goods. Many scholars such as Leonardo da vinci, Galleleo, Machiavelli, Michelangelo, were making discoveries that changed the way of thinking around the globe. They started to look toward science and math than the guidance of priests in church. This was when they started to question everything that they knew and learned. They started to think that they should be able to enjoy life and take care of their own bodies.
1. How did the cities of Italy help create the Renaissance?
-Italian cities aided in forming the Renaissance as it was the first place to go to during the time. First, as their constant overseas trade flourished, they received new ideas and products from other places. Second, the rich merchant class improved the city states. Third, the scholars sought to revive ancient Greek and Roman ideas.
2. What is your opinion of the Medici family?
-Medici family was indeed very powerful. Not only their extreme wealth, but also they had control over the politics of Florence. I think this family played an important role in leading the Italian Renaissance. The reason is because with their power and money they managed to help other scholars with their work.
3. How did Humanism influence Renaissance ideas?
-Humanism made people to focus on the individuals themselves because Humanism is a belief that highlights the potentials of human beings. Humanism had various effects.
4. Why did church leaders and wealthy merchants support the arts?
-Church leaders and wealthy merchants supported the arts to indicate their importance and power.
5. What were the similarities and differences between upper-class Renaissance men and women?
-Both Renaissance men and women were expected to be well educated, be knowledgeable of the classics and be charming. Men were supposed to be deeply involved and important while the women should not be involved and be more interested in art but never create it
6. After reading the "Analyzing Primary Sources" box, respond to this question: Do the qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance man and woman seem to emphasize the individual or the group? Give evidence in the documents to back up your answer!
-The qualities for ideal Renaissance man and women appear to emphasize the individual.The reason is because the document explained how a man should be where the enemy are to be seen and in every other place, gently, modest, reserved, above all things avoiding showiness and bold self praise.
A: Hamel, Dutch, shipwrecked, virtual prisoner, observer, isolated in one or two areas
P:Korea, Japan, Holland, Distance from events, time from events so it has affected his memory
P: Knowledge of the time period in Korea and in Europe
A: VOC, Dutch East Indies Company
R: Record keeper: memories of trip
T: Explaining Korea society and culture to a European audience (VOC)
S:First written document of life in Korea by a European
In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?
Hogsflesh had to walk around the chichester street almost naked other than a piece of cloth around his waist, and had to carry a faggot with him. When he got to the market he had to climb onto a platform and had to read a statement declaring that he had been convicted for not honoring Mary, that the christ’s body was not in the Eucharist and that he could be saved without the confession of a priest. He had to repeat this punishment at 19th November at the market and on 21 November at Lewes Market. Then on sunday 22nd November he had to join the religious procession at Chichester cathedral still carrying the Faggot to complete his sentence. The historians story or main point of the article is about the Faggot. That if he would have refused or failed, he would have been burned on a stack of faggots.
What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles?
The first role of a historian is to make a report of events into a chronological order and providing no further comments on the discussion. The second role is that of a interpreter, to say something about what things mean. The third role is that of a detective, to find out something by locating historical documents. The next role is that of an analyst, to look dispassionately at the evidence and presenting one’s findings. Another role is that of a judge, offering an assessment of the rights or wrongs of what happened in the past. A historian might also take the role of a political campaigner, because showing the place of ordinary people in history, the historian could contribute to the political discussion about the place of ordinary people. Another role is that of a philosopher, to concentrate on the questions of knowledge and ideas at looking at history throws up. There are two roles that involves all theses other roles that every historian must be. The first is that of a synthesizer, someone who brings together a variety of things and forges them into a new pattern. The other is that of a story teller. In producing a synthesis the historian has to make it available to an audience by writing or the the television. I do agree with his assumptions because all theses roles are necessary to find out more about history and to make sense of it.
What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references?
It means that you have see other peoples sources as if they had made a mistake. The reason is because history can be changed by the perspective of the historian and then history will not be clear because it has been edited. You have to question every fact and understand both perspectives of each side in an event to see the true fact.
How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view?
For example, you can have many interpretation about how you fell and scared you knee. You could have fallen because you were running too fast or you could have fallen because somebody made you trip. Or you could have fallen because you shoe lace was untied or that the floor was slippery and you just slipped.
Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response.
Well there was an incident when I got lost in disney world when I was 5. I remember how I got lost because I was looking somewhere else than where my parents where going, however, my parents remember it by how they were just going to a ride, however, when they turned back to see me, I was not there. Yes it is possible for a historian to be completely objective because they did not experience what the other person felt or saw from the same incident. For example, when I was lost I got very scared and kept on wandering around the whole place looking for my parents, however, my parents did not realize that I was missing until they got to the ride. So a historian from my point of view could say that it was my parents fault that I got lost, while, a historian from my parents point of view could say that it was my fault I was not paying attention to where we were going.
What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history?
If historians practice subjective history, they take on a particular side of the argument. However, the problem is that then we do not understand the entire history because we are only told about how our side is better. Then history could get twisted and changed and it will not be clear. However, the benefits of subjective history is that you can actually understand and feel what the side that you have chosen is feeling so then you can actually interact with history. The reason why my parents and I have a remember differently about the incident when I got lost in disney world is because we both had different views and different experiences. Therefore, we have different sides and because we don’t fully understand the other persons perspective of the incident, we have different stories. This tells us that history can sometimes be wrong and changes by the perspective of every person.
Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not?
The reason why every historian is a story teller is because they have to tell their findings and discoveries to a wide audience which is through writing, radio or television. If all historians are story tellers and there are myriad versions of every story we cannot trust historians because we do not know whether it is the pure clean fact, or if it was edited by their view of the story.
How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views?
I have changed my view of history so that I will question everything that historians tell me, because before this I used to believe in everything that they said. Now I will always question things and see both the perspectives of each side of an event. Therefore, I will understand clearly and see the truth.
Vocabulary
heretical: characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards
faggot: A bundle of sticks that was used for penance.
Eucharist: A sacrament and the central act of worship in many Christian churches, which was instituted at the Last Supper and in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed in remembrance of Jesus's death; Communion.
abstain: To refrain from something by owns on choice
penance: Punishment for a sin
beseeching: To requests
source: A point where ideas or conclusions start from
Culture consists of 3 major parts. Artifacts, which are objects that represent a culture in physical form, Mentifacts which are the ideas and beliefs of the culture and the social facts, which is an institution or event that brings people together and all theses are needed for understanding history. For example, the war of independence between America and Great Britain. Britain declared war with America when they decided to split from Great Britain. When we look into the glasses of Great Britain, we would think of America as a country full of only selfish, stupid and ignorant people who have forgotten their duties to their mother country and that they should all the wiped off. However, if we look at the perspective of America, we would think that Britain is a cruel, power hungry country because they always give us unfair taxes and try to control us. We would think that Britain was the bad side and that America was the good side while Britain would think the opposite. History it self is series of events that have taken place in different times, however, history can be manipulated by time. If we did not have the understanding of culture, then we would all just accept the fact and would be blind from the truth. For example, imagine that a citizen of Great Britain passed on the event of the war of independence. Of course he would take his countries side and tell everyone that America was evil. Then this would pass on through families, friends, different countries, and they would all think that America truly was evil if not for the understanding of culture. Because we understand culture, we can see through the glasses of both America and Great Britain and therefor, we can see the clear true fact about what was going on. Of course we would have different opinions and choose a side, however, from the understanding of culture, future generations will be able to see the clear truth and therefore history will not be twisted into completely different stories. So the understanding of culture is what gives us the capability of seeing and understanding all the different perspectives of any event.